TEST WISENESS : DEFINITION, TYPES AND IMPLICATION AS WELL AS SOME STUDIES RELATED WITH TEST WISENESS By: I.G.A. Lokita Purnamika Utami Rina Sari

TEST WISENESS : DEFINITION, TYPES AND IMPLICATION AS WELL AS 

SOME STUDIES RELATED WITH TEST WISENESS

By: I.G.A. Lokita Purnamika Utami

Rina Sari

Definition

(Millman, Bishop & Ebel, 1965) defined test wiseness “ a subject's capacity to utilize the characteristics and format of a test to receive a higher score, independent of the examinee's knowledge of the subject matter”

Oakland & Weilert (1971), that defined test wiseness as

“ the ability to manifest test-taking skills which utilize the characteristics and formats of a test and/or test-taking situation in order to receive a score commensurate with the abilities being measured”.

Test wiseness types or taxonomy

              The outline of the taxonomy contains Test wisenesso different divisions. The first division contains principles of test wiseness, which are independent of the test-constructor or test purpose.  The elements presented here are applicable in most testing situations, regardless of previous exposure (or a lack of it) to either test-maker, or other tests with a similar purpose.  There are four subdivisions in this division.  Those are time using strategy, error-avoidance strategy, guessing strategy and deductive reasoning strategy.

              The second division contains elements dependent upon the test constructor or purpose. Here the test-taker may profit from knowledge of a particular test-maker’s idiosyncrasies, or from past experiences on tests with similar purposes.  There are Test wisenesso subdivisions in this division.  Those are intent consideration strategy and cue-using strategy.  Besides the taxonomy, there are a number of additional test wiseness principles that have been proposed by various other theorists as the delimitation of the domain of test wiseness.  One of such instances is the examinee is advised to take care in marking the appropriate response of an answer sheet. This outline of test wiseness principles has served as conceptual frameworks for many studies related to test wiseness. 

Implication of test wiseness

            Generally, tests have been used extensively by government, particular teachers or  educational institutions in making selection, placement, and guidance decisions. Therefore, it is very important to ensure fairness of tests to underprivileged and minority groups.

            If the nature of the test material is such that some students are at an advantage from having past experience in test taking, then some inaccuracy in measurement can occur. A test-wise examinee can be expected to obtain a higher score on an aptitude, achievement, or teacher-made test, than an equally competent examinee who lacks test sophistication. ( Vernon, 1962).   According to Dolly & Williams (1986), a student who possesses a characteristic labeled as test wiseness could do well on tests even though their level of preparation is less than adequate.

Thus, we cannot neglect or ignore the existence of test wiseness in order to ensure fairness in testing and measurement. Besides that, the accuracy of academic skills measurement also could be greatly increased if all students possess more or less test wiseness skills, which would help to increase the validity and reliability of testing instruments.

Research on test wiseness

As an issue in educational and psychological measurement, numerous researchers have investigated test wiseness rather extensively and independently.  There are three theoretical perspectives, which have been adopted in studies related to test wiseness.

The first perspective considers test wiseness as an additional source of variance in test scores.  Hence, test wiseness is evaluated for its effects on test score, reliability, and validity.  The second perspective labels test wiseness as a lasting and persistent trait of examinee.  The concern here is an individual’s ability to employ test wiseness skills.  The third theoretical approach suggests the synthesis of the first Test wisenesso.  According to this perspective, although both viewpoints offer necessary information concerning test wiseness, neither theory alone is sufficient in explaining the construct.  Since test wiseness encompasses both the method of measurement, and the characteristics of the test-taker, it is vital to include elements from both viewpoints in any thorough treatise of test wiseness. 

Millman, Bishop & Ebel (1965) had found that differences among examinees in test performance was due to differences in test wiseness abilities, and not knowledge of subject matter.  However, more recently, Rogers and Bateson (1991) questioned the simple interpretation made by some that test wiseness and subject matter knowledge is independent.  Based on the findings of their research, they suggested that it appears that the effective application of test wiseness reasoning strategies is dependent on some partial knowledge.  This partial knowledge, although inadequate to respond the test item solely on the basis of this knowledge, is sufficient when coupled with knowledge of the test wiseness principles to increase the probability of correctly responding to items susceptible to test wiseness. They claimed that “students with low partial knowledge but test-wise knowledge and students with partial knowledge but low test-wise knowledge will perform less well than students who possess both on such items“. (p. 210)

Slakter, Koehler & Hampton (1970) had carried out a study to teach guessing strategy using programmed texts among high school students.  In their study, one group received a programmed text designed to teach students to answer every item on an examination, whether or not the directions included a penalty for incorrect answers.  The other group was administered a programmed text to teach certain selected aspects of test wiseness.  Each group served as the control group for the other.  Analysis of the data indicated the group that received the guessing program answered significantly more items than its control group(on both the immediate and delayed tests), even though there was a penalty for incorrect answers.  In similar fashion, the group exposed to the test wiseness program achieved significantly higher mean test wiseness scores than its control group.

                           Woodley (1972) states that test wiseness is a cognitive factor, one which is measurable and subject to change either through specific test experience or training in a test-taking strategy. Previous studies have also shown that test wiseness can be taught and learned by examinees as young as upper-elementary school grades. (Milman, Bishop & Ebel, 1965;)

Studies have shown that test wiseness is most susceptible to multiple choice items (Dolly & Williams, 1986; Millman, Bishop, & Ebel, 1965). test wiseness gives implication on poor item-writing practices, especially when dealing with teacher-made tests.

References

Dolly, J. P., & Williams, K. S. 1986. Using test-taking strategies to maximize multiple-choice test scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement,  46(3): 619-625.

Millman, J., Bishop, H.I., & Ebel, R. 1965.  An analysis of test wiseness.  Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(1), 707-726.

Oakland, T. & Weilert, E. 1971. The effects of test-wiseness materials on standardized test performance of preschool disadvantaged children. Journal of Psychology. 10 (4): 3555-360

 Rogers, W. T., & Bateson, D. J. 1991. Verification of a model of test-taking behavior of high school seniors, Journal of Experimental Education, 59(4) Sum 1991, 331-350.

Slakter, M. & Koehler, R. A. & Hampton, S. H. 1970, Learning test-wiseness by programmed tests, Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(0), 247-254.

Vernon, P. E. (1962), The determinants of reading comprehensions, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22(0), 269-286.